Like @[email protected], I was bothered by the contraction. So I decided to Google it in the hopes of explaining why exactly it’s wrong, in case you’re a second-language speaker.
I honestly thought there would be a simple explanation, but it turns out that there doesn’t seem to be one. I found one Reddit thread which linked to a now-defunct blog (luckily, [it’s still available through the Wayback Machine), another that linked to an earlier Reddit thread, inside of which was yet another link to an even earlier thread. Here’s the most recent of the threads in that chain if anyone wants to read it. But below is quoted the important bit from that archived blog post:
You CAN end a sentence with a contraction if it is a Type 2 (Verb-Negative), both in speaking and writing. You are always in safe territory when you end a sentence with a negative contraction.
Examples:
No, I don’t.
I’m a student, but she isn’t.
For a Type 3 (Modal + “have”), English expert Eugene Mohr says in his article in TESOL Quarterly, “The Independence of Contractions”, that “no contraction takes place if….have occupies the final position” in a sentence. HOWEVER, Mohr limits his explanations to contractions in written language, not spoken. In informal speech, native speakers often contract a modal with “have” at the end of a sentence. So, while it looks funny written out, you will hear people end a sentence this way.
Example:
I didn’t go to church, but I should’ve.
Last, and most importantly, you CANNOT end a sentence with contraction if it is a Type 1 (Pronoun-Verb). Not in formal English, not in informal English – never! In this case, you must write out the entire verb that follows the pronoun. So take a look at the contraction at the end of your sentence. Does it contain a pronoun? If it does, then break it up into its two original words.
INCORRECT: Yes, we’re.
CORRECT: Yes, we are.
But the bottom line is yeah, the title here uses a contraction in a way that is not permitted by standard English prosody.
Yeah for sure it is. The biggest difference is that there’s a fairly simple way to explain the adjectival order: “opinion, size, age, shape, colour, origin, material, purpose”. It’s apparently very difficult to explain when you can and cannot use contractions in a concise way.
Like @[email protected], I was bothered by the contraction. So I decided to Google it in the hopes of explaining why exactly it’s wrong, in case you’re a second-language speaker.
I honestly thought there would be a simple explanation, but it turns out that there doesn’t seem to be one. I found one Reddit thread which linked to a now-defunct blog (luckily, [it’s still available through the Wayback Machine), another that linked to an earlier Reddit thread, inside of which was yet another link to an even earlier thread. Here’s the most recent of the threads in that chain if anyone wants to read it. But below is quoted the important bit from that archived blog post:
But the bottom line is yeah, the title here uses a contraction in a way that is not permitted by standard English prosody.
Tom Scott actually has a video about this which also talks about why you can’t end sentences with contractions. https://youtu.be/CkZyZFa5qO0
Ahh yes, I knew I remembered hearing about this somewhere before, but couldn’t remember where. Tom Scott’s videos on linguistics are excellent.
This is God’s work. ❤️👌
It’s just one of those secret rules that we all pickup and use when it’s our first language.
Like the order of adjectives.
Yeah for sure it is. The biggest difference is that there’s a fairly simple way to explain the adjectival order: “opinion, size, age, shape, colour, origin, material, purpose”. It’s apparently very difficult to explain when you can and cannot use contractions in a concise way.
Thank you that’s a brilliant explanation.
Re-reading the headline, the second phrase starts with an implicit “your” too. Just to make it more confusing ;-)
Could be. Personally I interpreted it as an implicit “the”. Doesn’t change the meaning either way.